The puzzling phenomenon of Fahrenheit 9/11

Written by Mark Edward Manning
Published June 28, 2004

So Michael Moore's latest "film" - some would prefer to call it what it is: sinister anti-American, extreme-Left propaganda - Fahrenheit 9/11 is top of the North American box office. After Moore's work received the prestigious Palme d'Or prize at the Cannes Film Festival last month, it has now stormed onto American movie theaters, having grossed $8 million on its first day of release.

Which makes me wonder, are Americans gluttons for punishment? Maybe they are viewing this rubbish in the hopes that they can catch a glimpse of just what kind of madman they are dealing with - and let's be honest, any rich white man who derides and decries other rich white men for the horrible crimes of being both rich and white, has surely got loony-bin potential.

Or perhaps the barrage of the anti-American media, which reports every bad piece of news they can pick up upon while reporting absolutely no good news from the war front, has worked its magic, slowly transforming the American psyche from one of pro-Bush outrage at terrorism to anti-Bush outrage, blaming the President for terrorism.

Moore is a bitter man, extremely bitter at his country, his government and his people, and won't rest until every person on the face of the planet hates America and Americans with an almost dangerous passion. Then he'll liquidate all his impressive assets and join Johnny Depp on the French Mediterranean, looking forward to the next explosive terrorist attack on American soil in the hopes of stringing a prominent Republican up by the cojones and fattening his bank account even further.

A newspaper editorial in the Chillicothe Gazette called Moore's film out for the sloppy and profoundly biased non-documentary that it is. Problem is, everyone else in the world, including brain-addled Americans themselves, will be all too willing to take this as gospel.

Leftist Christopher Hitchens, enraged by Moore's untruths and obviously very unhappy at the spectre of having such a malcontent resting in the shadows of his political philosophy, has it out with the (Anti-) American Fat-ass.

Some select quotes:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then - wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al-Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic.

page 1 | 2 | 3
Mark Edward Manning grew up in Boston, MA and now lives in London, England. He wrote commentaries for The Boston Herald in the mid 1990s.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
The puzzling phenomenon of Fahrenheit 9/11
Published: June 28, 2004
Type:
Section: Video
Filed Under: Culture: Media
Writer: Mark Edward Manning
Mark Edward Manning's BC Writer page
Mark Edward Manning's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Mark Edward Manning
Culture: Media
All Video Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — June 28, 2004 @ 10:42AM — Marc [URL]

I agree you and Hitchens have said it all minus a couple of other Saddam attacks on the US.

The USS Stark was hit by a French made exocet missle fired by an Iraqi French made Mirage fighter jet. The claim at the time was that it was a case of "mistaken identity," Ok, sure. I contend the difference between a 400 foot warship and an 800 foot oil tanker is too great to be a mistake.

The USS Tripoli was holed by an Iraqi mine and had to limp back into port for repairs.

#2 — June 28, 2004 @ 11:07AM — Johnny Nemo [URL]

Because Mr. Moore criticises his government's policy, he must hate his country. The logic is inescapable. And even worse than that, Mr. Moore just might be a -- a France-lover!

#3 — June 28, 2004 @ 11:50AM — boomcrashbaby

I saw a People in the News segment on CNN that profiled Michael Moore. One of the critics mentioned that Moore gets a viewpoint on something, then will use footage to get his viewpoint across, so that while the usage of the footage might be taking extreme liberty, there is still a viewpoint or a message in what he says.

Knowing that, I don't see how it is much different than this post, except perhaps on a much larger scale. After all, Mark, you do go about Moore's motivations being greed and the almighty dollar.

I've never seen his movies but I've heard enough about him and his beliefs to know that making millions isn't his primary motivation.

It is frustrating when people present things out of context, or promote opinion as fact, I agree with you. Such tactics come from the left and the right.

I personally think his movies would reach and motivate a lot more people to his cause, if he wasn't so freehanded with the way he presents things.

Oh, the CNN segment also said that Moore does not consider his work documentaries, but editorials. There just is no recognition of a film being an editorial so people call it a documentary.

#4 — June 28, 2004 @ 13:01PM — Natalie Davis [URL]

"Maybe they are viewing this rubbish in the hopes that they can catch a glimpse of just what kind of madman they are dealing with"

Yeah. We wanted a glimpse of what the Terrorist-in-Thief is doing. Moore is allowed to spout his POV, just as you are.

#5 — June 28, 2004 @ 17:57PM — jack e. jett [URL]

christopher hitchens can go f*uck himself if he hasn't already.

this has become my new favorite expresssion.

jack

#6 — June 28, 2004 @ 18:10PM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

Just don't want to face the facts on Iraq, which Hitchens exposes marvelously, do you, Jack? When anyone defends Moore over Hitchens, that's pretty bad.

#7 — June 29, 2004 @ 12:18PM — jack e. jett [URL]

hitchens is too pissy for my taste. he is just a bit too vomity fair for my taste. i do like his hair. i did like his article on mother t. but he should still go fuck himself.

jack

jack e. jett

#8 — June 29, 2004 @ 17:34PM — Laura [URL]

two things:

1. Moore is expressing his opinion and he has done a good job at getting the word out - It was the number one selling movie this weekend. People want to see what he has to say...

2. While not all the facts in the movie are completely true.. bottom line is Bush and Cheney are making personal profit from attacking Iraq because of the oil company that they have invested in, in 2000, Colin Powell did not see Iraq as a threat, but in 2002-3 they did, and went to Iraq and found no WMD......

#9 — July 2, 2004 @ 01:34AM — Sortelli

While not all the facts in the movie are completely true..

LOL

Leave it to Michael Moore to make a fact unfactual. And leave it to his fans to justify it.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/16885)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments